Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Legal Services by Lawyers Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Acts Due to Their Duty-Bound Nature” – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that legal services provided by lawyers are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its 2019 iteration. This decision emphasizes the unique, duty-bound nature of the legal profession which is integral to the administration of justice.

The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the services rendered by lawyers could be classified under the ‘service’ category as defined by the Consumer Protection Acts of 1986 and 2019, thereby subjecting lawyers to the provisions of these acts concerning ‘deficiency in service’. The apex court, presided over by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, has categorically ruled out such an inclusion.

The matter arose from several appeals led by the Bar of Indian Lawyers against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) earlier decision, which had held that complaints of deficiency in service against advocates could be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act.

Nature of Legal Services: The court highlighted that legal services are not merely commercial but are crucial to the justice delivery system, involving duties to the court, the client, and the broader judicial framework.

Legislative Intent and Interpretation: Delving deep into the legislative history and intent behind the Consumer Protection Acts, the court observed that the primary objective was to shield consumers from unfair trade practices in commercial scenarios, not professional services.

Comparative Jurisprudence: The judgment also touched upon international practices in countries like Malaysia, the European Union, Canada, the USA, and Australia, noting a common approach to exempt professional services, including legal, from the ambit of consumer protection laws.

Legal Profession’s Distinctiveness: It was further emphasized that the legal profession, regulated under the Advocates Act, 1961, stands unique among other professions due to its integral role in upholding justice and democracy.

Decision: Concluding its extensive analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the NCDRC. It was held that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, categorizing legal services under ‘contract of personal service’ which are excluded from the act.

Date of Decision: 14th May 2024.

Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.

Similar News